I thought it'd be worthwhile to see how DuckDuckGo handles things since it's ostensibly the search engine without personalization. And it has a different scope and expectations from Google. One thing that comes to mind is how it dealt with the "did the holocaust happen"-type problems by hard coding the instant answers [a], something which Google doesn't admit to doing outright, and wouldn't be scalable anyway.
DDG's results for "black girls" is pretty different from Google present-day, though definitely a lot cleaner compared to what the author saw in 2009:
(sidenote: it's not clear if the author disabled SafeSearch in her 2009 search or not. SafeSearch was definitely part of Google by then, and I can't imagine "sugaryblackpussy.com" getting past that filter. If you turn DDG's Safe Search to "Moderate" -- "Off" returns the same results as "Strict" -- you will get a lot of very NSFW results. I guess this sidenote raises a new set of issues about the author's methodology but will ignore it for the sake of brevity here.)
The first result is an article titled "Black Girls Only" in Ebony magazine [0]. Which isn't a bad article (or publication). Maybe people would object that the first result is actually about sexualizing black women (albeit positively). The 2nd result is a lot less promising: "Hot Black Girls (45 pics)" at acidcow.com, which has a higher Alexa ranking [1] than Ebony.com (22K vs 63K), but basically looks to be a clunky imageboard. blackgirlscode.com is #6, followed by blackgirlsrun.com (a running club). The rest of the top results are black girl image sites (photobucket, a Facebook group for Big Beautiful Black Girls). The most notable difference between DDG and Google Results, besides what's #1, is that Google results have a lot more news articles in which "black girls" are in the headline (via NPR, nytimes, and theroot). DDG is a lot more sporadic in comparison
DDG for "white girls" is not terribly better in terms of being female-friendly:
The first result is to the Amazon listing of a book titled "White Girls", by a well regarded New Yorker critic [2]. But the #2 result goes to urbandictionary.com, and #3 hilariously goes to the Wayans Brothers' classic, "White Chicks". There's a bunch of results relating to "White Girl", the mediocre 2016 film (Wikipedia, rogerebert.com, rottentomatoes.com, etc). And then a bunch of results about white females with men of other races.
DDG's results for "black girls" is pretty different from Google present-day, though definitely a lot cleaner compared to what the author saw in 2009:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=black+girls&t=hb&ia=web
(sidenote: it's not clear if the author disabled SafeSearch in her 2009 search or not. SafeSearch was definitely part of Google by then, and I can't imagine "sugaryblackpussy.com" getting past that filter. If you turn DDG's Safe Search to "Moderate" -- "Off" returns the same results as "Strict" -- you will get a lot of very NSFW results. I guess this sidenote raises a new set of issues about the author's methodology but will ignore it for the sake of brevity here.)
The first result is an article titled "Black Girls Only" in Ebony magazine [0]. Which isn't a bad article (or publication). Maybe people would object that the first result is actually about sexualizing black women (albeit positively). The 2nd result is a lot less promising: "Hot Black Girls (45 pics)" at acidcow.com, which has a higher Alexa ranking [1] than Ebony.com (22K vs 63K), but basically looks to be a clunky imageboard. blackgirlscode.com is #6, followed by blackgirlsrun.com (a running club). The rest of the top results are black girl image sites (photobucket, a Facebook group for Big Beautiful Black Girls). The most notable difference between DDG and Google Results, besides what's #1, is that Google results have a lot more news articles in which "black girls" are in the headline (via NPR, nytimes, and theroot). DDG is a lot more sporadic in comparison
DDG for "white girls" is not terribly better in terms of being female-friendly:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=white+girls
The first result is to the Amazon listing of a book titled "White Girls", by a well regarded New Yorker critic [2]. But the #2 result goes to urbandictionary.com, and #3 hilariously goes to the Wayans Brothers' classic, "White Chicks". There's a bunch of results relating to "White Girl", the mediocre 2016 film (Wikipedia, rogerebert.com, rottentomatoes.com, etc). And then a bunch of results about white females with men of other races.
[a] https://github.com/duckduckgo/zeroclickinfo-goodies/blob/b7a...
[0] http://www.ebony.com/news-views/black-girls-only-503
[1] https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/acidcow.com
[2] https://www.amazon.com/White-Girls-Hilton-Als/dp/194045025X